The Shocking True Story of the Hunt for the Nation's Most Elusive Serial Killer

Reading this book on Holiday in the San Francisco bay area, I have to admit I did not feel comfortable anymore. I started in the evening, I could not put it down. Goosebumps all-over, every creaking sound magnified...scary!
The way Mr. Graysmith approached the subject, trying to gain some insight in the timeline of the killings, and the hardwork (if unsuccesfull) put in by the various police departments was highly interesting.
The scary part is that the Zoadiac is possibly still out there, all though an older man. Don't forget that most serial killers start in their twenties! Assuming that 1963 were his first 'kills' (not mentioned in the book), and having an average age of 25, that makes him 64!
Where has he been? Where is he now? This book is a definite must read. I can't wait for Zodiac Unmasked!

I have a great fascination with the turbulent history and weirdness that was the California bay area during the 60's and 70's. Beatniks, hippies, Sonny Barger and the Hells Angels, the Black Panthers, the S.L.A, riots and civil unrest, SF evolving from hippie mecca to homosexual mecca, multitudes of nutty political and religious groups, and way too much other lunacy for me to list. Even today in spite of the yuppification of the area you can still feel the ghosts of the past in the air. On top of all that there was the Zodiac Killer who would taunt the police with encrypted messages with occult symbology that he demanded be put on the front page of the newspaper. After all his taunting and arrogance the Zodiac was never caught. Some have questioned this books research and conclusions but its an interesting account of the murders and investigation that will make you paranoid of every odd sound you hear around the house at night while your reading it.

I bought this book after seeing David Fincher's excellent film "Zodiac" and the book is even better! It's a real page turner! It's in diary format and is very suspenseful, told in mystery style. I was expecting a fact by fact book, but this is a story and the book progresses as each suspect is identified. Even though I knew that the killer is not caught, I kept hoping that he would be caught. Robert Graysmith is a very good writer and a great investigator! I enjoyed this book so much that I immediately bought "Zodiac Unmasked". If you enjoy a page turning, suspenseful book, then read "Zodiac"! You won't be disappointed!

Zodiac taught me that serial killers are either paranoid schizophrenics that have voices telling them to kill or they’re sociopaths. There was a lot of careful research done for this book, and I can appreciate that. I think the Zodiac is a fascinating example of a serial killer, but you can't help but cringe when you're reading some of the descriptions of the murders. It’s definitely creepy that a killer that sadistic and psychotic was never caught.

We have reached the point where true-crime books are so common, the writing of them so inadequate, that the entire genre is plunging downhill, at breakneck speed. So, for readers newly-hooked on this arena, Robert Graysmith's "Zodiac" will be the masterpiece they will forever compare new books with. This story has all the essential elements of a gripping, impossible-to-put-down book: intimate knowledge of the crimes, a wealth of interesting dialogue from those who were most affected by Zodiac, forensic and scientific data that does not read like a calculus text, and, most important of all: the story is true!

Zodiac is still a pur best-seller today. the author Robert Graysmith don't always talk about facts and the 20% of the book is based on lies, but this book is the best about the most enigmatic case in the history of true crimes story. Graysmith did a great job of talking about the killings of Cheri jo bates, david Faraday, betty lou jensen, cecelia Shepards and paul stine. he also talk about the attaqus agains brian hartnell, mike mageau and kathleen johns. the best chapter is about the murder of Darlene ferrin and Graysmith show us a different face of this poor young lady. i read the book again today, for the 22 times, not only because im passionate with the Zodiac case, but also because i love good written book and this book is very very well written. i give this one 5 stars on five because of the drama, the tension, the facts, the lies who give action to this book and of course, because of The zodiac himself.

I read most of this in San Francisco, appropriately enough. Not sure how I feel about Graysmith. He helps the overall collection of information about Zodiac, but his obsession is, well, an obsession. As a writer, he could use a stronger editor, someone to tell him to when to open and close threads and how to make better connections. Reality dictates that not all of Graysmith's questions are answered, but some of them could have been dropped from the book.

The only True Crime books I read are books written by authors who write about notible crimes, are well written and researched, books by authors such as Harold Schechter, Truman Capote's 'In Cold Blood' and I should throw in Erik Larson's 'Devil in the White City' I don't read the tabloid pulp true crime stories by writers who rush their books to the printing press only for profit.

Zodiac is the first true crime book I ever read and that was quite sometime ago yet still memerable. This is a very well writen book about the Zodiac murders. Robert Graysmith certainly did his research to bring you all the accounts of this killer. Included in the book are the letters, puzzles and games the Zodiac sent to the media and police taunting them with hints to discover his identity and with all the information he gave he still continued to get away with his murdering spree. This book scared me. This book is a good book and not outdated. Anyone who wants to read a real true crime book should consider Zodiac

One of the more interesting quests in true crime history, Robert Graysmith's 1986 book "Zodiac" has been a perennial bestseller for decades. An obsessively documented investigation of a series of crimes around San Francisco during the late 1960s, Graysmith has created a semi-Bible for generations of amateur detectives hoping to solve the mystery. Akin to Ann Rule's personal involvement with Ted Bundy, leading to her near-brilliant 1980 bestseller The Stranger Beside Me, Graysmith was on the front lines working as a political cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle at the time. The killer, who dubbed himself the "Zodiac," mailed a series of bizarre letters to the newspaper. Graysmith became fascinated and after years of maddening investigation, produced this book.

The spree began in 1968 with the shooting murders of a Lover's Lane couple, David Faraday and Betty Jensen, outside of San Francisco. An identical crime followed in July of 1969 when Michael Mageau and Darlene Ferrin were fired upon near a golf course. The killer's most famous crime took place September, 1969 when, adorned in a Halloweenish black hood, he walked upon yet another isolated couple at Lake Berryessa, Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard, viciously attacking them with a knife. His final confirmed crime was the shooting murder of taxi driver Paul Stine in October, 1969 in the heart of San Francisco.

In the sick annals of American serial killer history, this is a meager number of victims. What sets Zodiac apart, besides the fact he was never caught, was a large number of demented, hand-written letters he mailed to California newspapers. Several letters contained cryptogram puzzles, most of which remain unsolved (one was cracked, which boasted of his joy of killing). Of the few eyewitness descriptions (Mageau and Hartnell survived their attacks), he appears to have been a Caucasian, heavyset male with a military haircut.

Okay, there's your brief synopsis which Graysmith details far better than I. He also documents what could have been an early crime in 1966 and even a troubling kidnapping of a woman in 1970. Zodiac continued his taunting letters until 1974 and then, nothing. Most of the letters were printed in area newspapers causing great hysteria. The problem I have with Graysmith's "Zodiac" is he gives far more credit to the killer than he deserves. Zodiac claimed 37 victims and Graysmith goes to great lengths to prove him correct by giving him credit for a series of unsolved hitchhiker murders. Hogwash.

I found many statements in Graysmith's work to be dated and questionable, which I'll accept since this was written in the 1980s. But I am not convinced he has properly profiled the Zodiac. I suppose this is a fun mystery, assuming you're not related to the victims. The reality is the Zodiac could very well have only murdered five people. He almost got caught leaving the Stine killing (motorcycle policemen briefly questioned him, unaware he was the criminal), and suspect he never committed a crime again because, frankly, it scared the crap out of him. It's a peculiar case with a unique category. This was not an experienced criminal. Zodiac was also not a traditional serial killer obsessively compelled to habitually kill. He was an enraged and sick man who, for whatever reason, cooled. The fact he never committed another crime after shooting Stine (my belief), and very likely lived a normal life after wards destroying all evidence, is why he was never caught.

Graysmith details some interesting suspects, one of which Arthur Leigh Allen, he devotes an entire book to with his dreadfully boring 2002 sequel Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America's Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed. Allen is a good suspect who, according to John Douglas in his fascinating book The Cases That Haunt Us, fits the profile. But fingerprint, DNA and handwriting evidence do not match Allen (he died in the 1990s), no matter Graysmith's personal need to find closure.

Graysmith's books received a boost of popularity thanks to director David Fincher's brilliant 2007 work Zodiac: The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition) one of the best true-crime films ever made. Fincher follows Graysmith's ghost and insinuates Allen was the killer. I don't believe for a moment Allen was the Zodiac, but no matter. A companion documentary on the DVD has a telling comment from a retired investigator who worked the case. To paraphrase, "When attempting to solve a crime, the evidence leads us to a killer, not the other way around. You don't find evidence with a specific person in mind. The crime evidence does that job for you."

Graysmith's exhausting books should not be the final word on this confounding case. They're a good place to start, though better served as being a man's own personal examination of the terror the criminal struck in the hearts of an entire state. "Zodiac" ultimately is an interesting, though manic, time capsule desperately seeking the bogeyman.

Several years ago, I read "Zodiac Unmasked" by Robert Graysmith. The disorganized writing style detracted from my enjoyment of the book. I recently got around to reading Graysmith's original book "Zodiac". While this book is much more professionally written, it only differs from "Zodiac Unmasked" in that "Zodiac" refers to prime suspect Arthur Leigh Allen in the alias Robert Hall Starr. Graysmith still has the same suspect in mind for both books and he has only convinced me that to an 80% degree of certainty that Allen is a viable suspect.

Rather than recount the crimes of the Zodiac in this review, I would recommend using several web sites which might give those interested a concise version of the Zodiac. Many aspects of this story that are not in print are suggested on the web, though truthfulness has to be questioned.

The Zodiac Killer may be the most mysterious and elusive serial killer in American history. The continued question about the killer's identity has left readers looking for answers. This book is a good place to start your search to for an answer that may never be found.

The author was intimately involved in the investigation of the Zodiac killer and this is his dissertation. Real life being more scary than fiction, this book was hard to put down and made it hard to sleep as well. The author does a good job of laying out the facts of the case, the details, and the main suspects. If you like suspense, thrillers, or murder mysteries, this real life drama surpasses all the fiction. Here's to hoping this case actually is solved one day.

Full/comprehensive account of the most chilling (in my opinion) true-crime story of the 20th century. If you don't mind a writing style comparable to a Police Report, than you'll really enjoy this. I'm not a Zodiac expert (I read this after I saw an excellent "Nash Bridges" episode on a Zodiac copy-cat), but I can't imagine a more detailed analysis of those crimes and, since Graysmith was close to the action, his opinions carry weight. From what I can tell, this is the best account available of these crimes and I would recommend this book highly.

This extremely long-winded version of the Zodiac Killer investigation, as portrayed by political cartoonist Robert Graysmith, is full of detail; unfortunately, it has been saturated with detail that serves no purpose other to fill pages.

Graysmith, an apparent wanna-be cop, takes on the role of a "private investigator" and attempts to gather "evidence" on his favorite Zodiac suspect, Arthur Allen Leigh. However, readers are given some insight into other possible suspects while others that police favored are not mentioned at all.

While this book is filled with reproductions of Zodiac's letters, etc., readers are not invited to envision the victims as no photos of these individuals are included. I was only able to gain an image by Googling for information on the Zodiac Killer.

If one can weed through the usless dribble, there is an excellent story within; however, one most remember that this book was written based mainly on the author's opinion. And, to be quite frank, the opinion of a political cartoonist is not the first I'm looking to take; but readers can leave that up to their own judgment.

After reading an article in the New york Times Book Review with a brief mention of the Zodiac killings in San Francisco, I decided to pick up a used copy at one of San Francisco's numerous book shops. As a San Francisco resident I was intrigued by the locale of the murders as well as the fact that no one was ever charged with the crimes. What absolutely stunned me to silence however, was learning that one of the murders occurred on the corner of Washington and Cherry streets, a spot I pass by everyday going home to my apartment on Washington St. just a few blocks away. The reason I am writing this review is because for as long as I have lived at my present address I have noticed an unusual but frequent visitor to the same street corner. I first noticed this man late one night coming home from my friend's house in the Marina. I would ride my bike through the Presidio and exit on Arguello St. making a left onto Washington and then continue on a few short blocks home. This man was just standing on the corner. I wouln't have even remembered him but on several trips home usually very late around 1:00 or 2:00 am, I would see the same man on the same spot just standing there. What was most striking about him was that he was between 60 and 70 years of age. What is a man his age doing there at this time of night? After reading Robert Graysmith's book, I had a chilling thought. What if this man was the Zodiac coming back to the scene of the murder to relieve it. He would be around the same age presently. I have not seen this man since I read the book, but you can imagine the fright I'm feeling. I am very nervous when passing that corner now. I get chills in the evening when walking home. I realize most likely that he probably is not the Zodiac but I can not figure a good explanation for this man's frequent appearance there. Could he be a man fascinated by the killings? Whatever the case may be it is quite unusual and definitely disturbing

A reviewer on the store highly recommended this book in a review of another that I had just finished. I didn't know anything about the Zodiac killer and I was interested so I picked it up at a used bookstore. It's very interesting. Not what I was expecting only because I wasn't alive in the 60s when this was all going on. It scares me quite a bit, though, when I'm reading by myself at night which I know is silly but I'll be glad when I'm finished with it. Not that I don't read things that scare me anyway but those are usually ghost stories and the ghosts can't kill you. Suppose it's nice to know I care enough to not want to die but perhaps that's more in the line of Not Wanting To Be Stabbed 300 Times. My only complaint is that it was published like 15 years ago and I wish there was an appendix or something with updates, like whar ever happened to the main suspect, etc.

After watching the movie twice & reading the first couple of chapters of the book, I offer the following observations. First, there is a lot of detail. One gets the sense that Graysmith put in every scrap of information he had (whether or not it was truly relevant). As an example, I offer below the list of characters introduced in Chapter Two alone. Second, his writing style is neither here nor there. It doesn't read like a fictional account of the same subject yet it is more than a summary of known facts in the case. If it were not a real case, I would not continue reading as the storyline is overcrowded with seemingly unimportant data. However, it's this same jumble of information that gives the reader a sense of what it must have been like for the detectives working the case.

1. Darlene Ferrin: shooting victim
2. Bobbie Ramos: Darlene's co-worker at Terry's Restaurant
3. Dean Ferrin: Darlene's current (second) husband
4. Dena Ferrin: Darlene & Dean's baby daughter
5. Bill & Carmela Leigh: Ferrins' landlords; Dean's bosses at Caesar's Palace Italian Restaurant
6. Karen: Darlene's 17 year old babysitter
7. Pam Suennen: Darlene's younger sister
8. Jim "Phillips" (assumed last name): Darlene's ex-husband
9. Bobbie Oxnam: previous co-worker of Darlene at San Francisco phone company
10. Leo Suennen: Darlene's younger brother
11. Mike Mageau: shooting victim; close friend of Darlene's
12. David Mageau: Mike's twin brother; also a close friend of Darlene's
13. Jay Eisen, Ron Allen, Rick Crabtree & Sydne: friends who attended Darlene's painting party
14. Richard Hoffman, Steve Baldino & Howard "Buzz" Gordon: police officers who attended Darlene's painting party
15. "Paul" the bartender (not real name): "creepy" attendee of the painting party; later a prime suspect in the murders
16. Linda Del Buono: Darlene's other sister
17. Leo: Linda (& presumably Darlene's ) father
18. Christina: Darlene's 15 year old sister
19. John Lynch: Detective Sergeant with Vallejo police
20. Harley Scalley: manager at Terry's Restaurant
21: Jane Rhodes: Darlene's acquaintance at Terry's Restaurant
22. Janet Lynne: Darlene's second babysitter
23. Pamela: Janet Lynne's friend
24. George Bryant: Blue Rock Springs Golf Course caretaker
25. Debra, Roger & Jerry: teens who came across the victims following the shooting
26. Nancy Slover: Vallejo P.D. switchboard operator
27. Ed Rust: Sergeant with Vallejo P.D.; John Lynch's partner
28. Richard Hoffman & Sergeant Conway: Vallejo P.D. at the crime scene
29. Arthur Ferrin: Dean's father
30. Officer Shrum & his partner: Vallejo P.D. sent to notify Mageau family of shooting
31. Evelyn Olson: Darlene's co-worker at Terry's Restaurant
32. Lois Mckee: cook at Terry's Restaurant
33. Carmen: Mike Mageau's mother
34. Detective Sergeant Bidou: Benicia P.D.
35. Jack Mulanax: Vallejo P.D. who inherited Ferrin case from Lynch

I've always been fascinated by Zodiac, magnified in part, I think, by the fact that I've lived in various parts of the Bay Area for my entire life. The first Zodiac book I read was a few years ago, called, "This is the Zodiac Speaking", and it referred back to this work continuously- it seemed a response to Graysmith's theories, which already points to the fact that "Zodiac" is the canonical text on the subject.

It seems that there is no theory, suspect, clue that Graysmith doesn't include here; I cannot imagine a more well-researched book on the subject.

The only complaints I have are minor- that some of his conclusions, as others have noted, seem dubious- well, yeah, the Zodiac always killed near water... the Bay Area is named that after a BAY, after all... as well, I mean Paul Stine's murder wasn't particularly near water, except that San Francisco in general is. Also, I'm not sure Zodiac fits the description of a sexual sadist. I actually buy into "This is the Zodiac Speaking"'s explanation much more so; even though this book was obviously more detailed than "Zodiac Speaking". Because of the format, I also had trouble following some of the details, the organization seemed at times a little sloppy. Still, there's no work better than this to outline one of the most puzzling crimes in American history.

This is *not* the Zodiac speaking...
Robert Graysmith, previously a rather little-known journalist, decided to have his five minutes by showing all the details of the never-solved case of the elusive Zodiac killer of California. Graysmith does a good job presenting the terrifying true story, and even though he misses some points, that part of the book is an interesting read to a true-crime junkie. Unfortunately, Graysmith also tries his strength at tracking the Zodiac. Since he is far from being Sherlock Holmes, he concentrates on Detective Dave Toschi's suspect Arthur Leigh Allen, whom he hides under the name of Robert Hall Starr. It is in fact quite funny to watch Graysmith try - and fail - to show Allen (ruled out as a suspect long ago, and for good reasons) as the Zodiac. A few of Graysmith's ideas on why he thinks Allen to be the Zodiac, such as the handwriting-forgery device, are truly amusing. Unfortunately for Graysmith, they were not meant to be.
Since the book was published, Graysmith has learned a lot information from the readers, and - being always prepared to milk the old cash cow - he is preparing a new book on the same subject. Will it be even worse?
That was *not* the Zodiac speaking.

I'm English, from England. Ten years ago, I spent half of 1992 in the USA, travelling. I bought 'Zodiac' in NYC that June and proceeded to navigate anti-clockwise around the country : 'Zodiac' along with me, for the ride. On arriving in California and washing up at Vallejo, I sat on the hood of my car in a milky sunshine and reflected on the book I'd read twice by that time, watching the world go by....
Graysmith sets out in scarifying detail the creepy-crawly stuff that happened in the Bay Area in the Age Of Aquarius for which Zodiac is believed responsible. The narrative has pace and time and place : a vivid picture is painted as his investigation unfolds. The book describes a vile tragedy with verve and sympathy : nothing is mishandled and the result is a full-tilt entertainment. Because the elusive, cryptic Zodiac never was apprehended (at least not in the sense that he got captured), the tale remains intruiging in much the same way as that of Jack The Ripper. It is truly a mystery as to 'who' and 'why'.
I have read many 'classic' 'true-crime' accounts. For me, Zodiac is the best. You will not forget it.
Next month, Robert Graysmith's sequel - Zodiac Unmasked - to this original gets a release. I suspect that I'm far from alone in anticipating it.
That's because of this marvellous original. It's a (the) masterpiece of its kind and THAT's why you should read it. That's all

I watched the movie first. Before I knew there was a book as well. Brought the book same day and it was the best crime story I've read in awhile. The movie was good but the book was more chunky in facts.

Incredibly detailed story with tons of factual information. Graysmith does an excellent job of displaying the facts of the Zodiac case along with his own opinions. Some questions, however, are left unanswered, which is frustrating, but that is because the case will probably never be solved completely. One of the biggest unanswered questions for me was why were the authorities never able to track down Kathleen Johns; she was the only surviving victim that spent a significant amount of time with the Zodiac. She was the only victim to actually see and hear zodiac and live.

Graysmith's story is very similar to the movie however, there are a few details to the case that were left out and have a good amount of meaning relating to the case. Overall, it is a good read and will leave you wanting more.

This book is a fast-paced, well-researched account of the Zodiac killer, who terrorized San Francisco in the mid to late sixtees. Serial killers often get caught or give themselves up. This one has remained elusive to this day. The accounts of the police ivestigations, tactics, and personal reactions were well written. I will always remember this book and its victims.

Very interesting book. Very hard to put down and very hard to read only once. Truly a scary story about a killer who was never found. The evidence that has been researched and presented is fairly through but I can't help but believe that there is more evidence and information out there that has been overlooked.

I thought Robert Graysmith did an excellent job on writing this book. There is a lot of details that one doesnt see on T.V. I learned a lot about the Zodiac from this book. Although I have seen movies and documentaries about the Zodiac, This book takes you right to the beginning. It makes you want to research out new evidence and find out if they have found anything. Ive done a lot of research on serial killers, and this book stays in my mind constantly of the most accurate events of its time.

Robert Graysmith was the cartoonist on one of the papers who received letters from the serial killer named Zodiac. He was drawn to the case and went on to carry out his own investigations into who was Zodiac( for the record they never did capture him) yet Graysmith had his own ideas into who was Zodiac. For anyone who watched the recent film this is a must read. Chilling.

Apparently used as a gruesome "how to" manual by Heriberto "Eddie" Seda, the 1989-1996 New York "Zodiac copycat." Readers should be aware that most students of the truly mysterious Zodiac case believe that Graysmith's candidate for the perpetrator is not the right guy. But relentless self-promotion has worked -- this has become one of the longest-running true crime books.

I have read some really chilling true crime books as "Mindhunter", which is probably one of the best. However, this one cites a lot from police reports and is thus rather sterile than suspenseful. Graysmith names the chapters after the murdered victims and tries to weave a thrilling story around the facts, but unfortunately fails in trying.
It might be ok to get well-informed about the case (although other reviewers here say that graysmith is ill-informed), but I cannot recommend it as a "cant-put-it-down" novel.
Read Mindhunter instead!

I have just recently begun to read books on serial killers and this book was my first. I loved every page of this book and I don't think another author could do this good of a job on the topic. Robert Graysmith worked at the San Francisco chronicle during the time period this all happened and he did his share of research. He put together a very informative book about one of the killers who taunted police while killing many and GETTING AWAY WITH IT! I think this is a must read for any true crime fan and especially fans of the Zodaic. I could barely put this book down and like others said it was tough to read near bedtime.

This book opened my eyes. Before reading this, I was just a small town kid who had no idea things like this happened. Not to mention in the late 60's. Graysmith is a master at weaving the tale of a mysterious being who calls himself the Zodiac. The vivid descriptions and attention to detail he derives through his interviews with those involved in the case still haunt me at least once a week in my sleep. Graysmith is the king of true crime in my book and a master at non-fiction in general. He puts you there, and I suggest all of his books and I'm eagerly awaiting The Bell Tower.

There are two problems with this book. One is that it is very entertaining from start to finish. Secondly, it purports that everything inside its contents is true and correct. The way this book is written, the average reader will take everything in it as gospel. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem lies in that Graysmith draws conclusions where there are none, stretches possibilities into truth, and reports as fact without any evidence to support it. There are so many errors that it would take a short story to cover it all.

Allen makes for a very interesting suspect, but the truth is that his DNA didn't match, his prints didn't match and his writing didn't match. Furthermore, there is no evidence (despite Graysmith's claims) that Allen knew any of the victims. Law enforcement has never found anything linking him to the crime, other than a watch that thousands of other people possessed. He was a weird guy no doubt, but there is far more evidence against him being the Zodiac than for it.

Graysmith wants Allen to be the Zodiac so bad he was willing to omit the truth to create this book. The truth is out there somewhere, but it's not here. We may never know who Zodiac is...and yes, your guess is as good as mine. We can only find the truth if we are willing to throw out that which doesn't match, rather than trying to force it to match.

This case wouldn't still be an open case with the San Francisco PD, the Napa County Sheriff's Department and the Vallejo PD if they really believed Allen was the Zodiac. Graysmith was an opportunist who weasled his way into the case. However, in doing so he also became a pioneer in this case, the first to try to put everything together to solve it. He started this wave of amateur sleuths that exist today. In that respect, society owes him a bit of gratitude. Maybe what he started will be the thing that finally breaks this case open.

Until David Fincher's movie came out (I still haven't seen it, but am eager to), I'd never really heard much about the Zodiac killer. I'd seen "Dirty Harry" and knew it was loosely based on Zodiac, but that was about it. Reading descriptions of the Fincher movie got me intrigued. I typically am not that into in serial killer stories, as the entertaining part of a mystery for me tends to be the motive, and serial killers seen to all have the same motive -- they're all just really, really nuts. That said, the Zodiac killer seemed a bit more complex, if only because he got the entire nation wrapped up in his case by sending (to the San Francisco newspapers) complicated ciphers and codes he claimed would reveal his identity.

This non-fiction book is written by a political cartoonist from the SF Examiner who was fascinated by the Zodiac's letters and ciphers and ended up spending over a decade researching the crimes, talking to suspects and witnesses, and working on his codes (ultimately, Graysmith ended up cracking the one coded message nobody else, including the FBI and CIA, had managed to break -- pretty cool, if you ask me). Overall, I found the tale of the Zodiac killer fairly creepy, and the parts of the book that focused on his actual crimes and taunting of the newspaper and cops were fascinating. But at least a quarter of this book was boring as heck, especially when we got into the late 70's and early 80's, when the Zodiac all but disappeared and Graysmith focused more on dissecting various suspects and theories. This could've been interesting in the hands of a stronger writer, but Graysmith is a political cartoonist, not a reporter, and it really shows. Nevertheless, this book is worth picking up if you're curious about the story of the Zodiac killer, and may make an interesting companion to the movie if you've already seen it and want to learn more. Other than that, though, nothing much else to see here, and I'm pretty unlikely to pick up Graysmith's follow-up to this book, Zodiac Unmasked. Oh, who am I kidding -- I probably WILL pick it up. But I'll have only myself to blame if I end up not liking it all that much either!

This book helped me like books, as ridiculous as that sounds. This is one that you can't put down. Graysmith lays everything out, I think few people outside of the criminal justice system actually know the case as well as he does. This book is one of my favorite reads, I highly recommend it to anyone who loves true crime stories and especially mysteries.

This is an informative book about the crimes of the Zodiac killer and the investigation surrounding the search for the killer. The author has went to great lengths to obtain info from the actual police case files and compiled events in chronological order. So much better than other true crime novels that tend to include speculation stated as fact.

I suggest to anyone considering purchasing this book to highly disregard any biased rating of people believing to be "superior" to Mr. Robert Graysmith. This is a man who was working in the news studio that was recieving the letter and cyphers, and he took it upon himself to dig furhter into the case even after police had given up. He had access to police files and evidence that is no longer available to the public. So please, give him some respect. As for police clearing A.L.A twice, that is simply not true. Two police departments in California still treat this as an open case with him still as the lead suspect. (not to mention he has some substantial, rather convincing prior convictions). I personally do not trust any "speculations" website such as thezodiackiller.com as they cannot possibly have any spectacular new information regarding the subject and I suggest they are thus treated as a "conspirator's" website. Finally, those who believe that the coined terms of calling someone a "graysmith" is undeniabe proof that his accounts are false, why, that is just as absurd as saying the U.S. did not land on the moon in 1969. So, if you feel the need to further research the case, purchasing this book is not a bad place to start.

A terrific new cover for the paperback edition, the legacy of America's most notorious uncaptured serial killer, and a tie-in to a well-regarded David Fincher film can't disguise the fact that "Zodiac" the book (first published in 1986) is one extremely slipshod piece of work.

There's ample warning from the first page in that truth is taking a holiday even if death isn't. Author Robert Graysmith channels the mind of David Faraday, taking in the sights of the Golden Gate Bridge just hours before being killed by the title figure, a serial killer who terrorized Northern California in the late 1960s. Faraday didn't have a chance to share these observations of his, so they can only be fictional constructs sent up by Graysmith to give his true-crime book a novelistic feel. It's a small moment of irritation that grows steadily as the pages turn.

First come accounts of each of the Zodiac killings. These are decently presented in some cases, with Graysmith delivering some of the same flair for setting that made his Bob Crane murder book "Auto Focus" such a good read. Unfortunately, he also reveals that book's difficulty with exposition was not a one-time thing. He mentions intriguing clues (an early victim's escapades with dangerous pals, a rumored recording of the Zodiac phoning in one of his crimes) and raises questions (why was one of Zodiac's victims dressed in several layers of clothing on a warm summer night?), but he drops these and other tangents just as soon as he picks them up, never tying them together or providing context within the larger scope of the crime.

What was Graysmith, a political cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle, doing at the center of this case? He notes the Zodiac's use of cryptic lettering.

"As an editorial cartoonist you develop a strong sense of justice, a need to change things, and as a painter and cartoonist I worked with symbols every day," he writes. "The tools of my career were being misused, appropriated by a murderer."

If that sounds less than convincing, Graysmith goes on to decipher one of Zodiac's cryptic notes to the media, explaining that he did so by taking his commonly-used words from other writings and grafting them onto promising-looking patterns. Then he discloses the message he got out of it, revealing a jumble of catch-phrases and clearly random words.

It's clear that operating without any professional sense of discretion or detachment, Graysmith became too enmeshed in the drama of Zodiac for his own good. He visits the former hangouts of suspects, like a movie theater where he talks to a guy he is sure knows more than he is telling. Meanwhile, he notes footsteps on the floor above.

"I had a feeling that at any moment a stocky man in a black hood could step into the room holding a pistol," Graysmith writes. This episode occurs in 1978, nine years after Zodiac's last known murder. Needless to say, no hooded stranger appears.

The whole book is like that, full of twists and turns leading nowhere. He spends a chapter on a psychic who comes up with the numbers "2" and "11" before leaving the case, and another on the phases of Saturn during each of the killings. By the time Graysmith finally begins to discuss a suspect he believes is the Zodiac, he employs the pseudonym "Bob Starr" because of the threat of a lawsuit. Here's an idea: Stick to the facts, then the guy can't sue you.

Well, now the guy can't, 'cause he's dead. Graysmith mentions his name now, in a long paperback postscript devoted to the movie. While authorities have apparently ruled him out, no one has mentioned another suspect to take his place. That gives Graysmith a sliver of credence, no one else has come up with a better. Yet it is likely the wrong name.

I didn't care so much about that. I just felt my intelligence insulted by Graysmith's poor writing style and overall turgidness. "Zodiac" performs the amazing feat of making murder as exciting as accounting, only this time the book doesn't balance.

The definitive day-by-day detailed book on the case, with the many messages Zodiac sent to the media, police, and others. Graysmith offers a solution to Zodiac's second long cryptic message, however it appears to be bugus. This is a very minor gripe about a fast-paced book I couldn't put down. The drawing of the Zodiac in the creepy costume he wore when butchering the couple at the lake is as creepy as Graysmith's account. Even scarier is the wild ride the woman had who escaped from his car.

Mr. Graysmith is to be commended for a thoroughly researched and beautifully written account of a truly horrific series of crimes. The reader should be warned in advance that one reading leads to another; the book is that fascinating. If there is a fault in Graysmith's effort, it lies in his conviction that one particular suspect was responsible for the crimes and the diabolical letters written to the newspapers and police. It should be noted that the Zodiac case remains unsolved. A thoroughly absorbing book. Four stars!

My professor assigned this book in my class. I had read it many times in the past but it was great to read again. This book, ZODIAC, is memorable, frightening, well written and intensely researched. Robert Graysmith certainly put in the time to write and research this book. You will be scared by the descriptions of the crimes and the taunting letters the killer leaves behind. This book is hard to put down and is a MUST READ for true crime lovers. This was the first of it's kind when it came out. It includes all the photos and text of the letters. Graysmith does a wonderful job telling the story with his writing, making you feel like you're there watching this mystery unfold. You feel that the events are taking place right then as you read because of the formatting of this book. It's like you're reading a police file with the date stamps and exact location and times of each scene and event. If you're a fan of true crime books, this will be one of your favorites because of the amazing detail the author provides and the mystery surrounding the case. You won't regret taking the time to read this book. It's very chilling and it's very hard to put down, the best of it's kind that I've read.. It's a must read if you are new to the Zodiac case.

The book details the case of the "Zodiac" killer that was active in San Francisco in the 1960's. This is an account of one man's personal involvement in this case. The author worked at the San Francisco Chronicle at the time and took 10 years to write this book. He was there. This book describes the author's own investigations. It's a frustrating case for many reasons. I can't imagine a more detailed account of these crimes and since Graysmith was right there during the action, his opinions are absolutely valid. The author provides a tremendous amount of details about the police investigation and the letters.

I have to laugh at some of the reviews posted here regarding this book and the author. There are obviously a few people who believe the killer is someone different then the one stated in this book. There also are a lot of fanatics that have their own theories or competing books or websites (or whatever!) that obsess on every little detail as you will notice when you read these reviews. Most believe this book is dead on, myself included. Regardless of whom you believe Zodiac to be there is no need to attack the author. I mean, what is wrong with some of these people? A few reviewers go on and on about a little detail that they say he got wrong, then call him a liar or a self promoter. HUH???? Calm down crazy Zodiac fanatics. What have those people created I wonder? What have they offered to the world and what do they do besides critique others work? Also who is to say that they are right and he is wrong. Just because they say that doesn't mean it's true. I guess this is a genre that unfortunately occasionally attracts some rather odd/obsessed people. Most people just enjoy a good mystery or are intrigued but some take it too far. Mostly everyone loves this book but beware of the fanatics who want to be responsible for solving this crime and will spread lies about anyone else who makes a valid attempt. Such as this author and others who have written books about this case. If you don't like the book or agree with the main suspect, fine, but have real reasons.

I don't understand people who say this book is full or lies or fictionalized. Any book has to have the tiniest bit of story telling to recreate scenes unless you were personally there for each murder which isn't the case for all historic books. Aside from the small amount of necessary writing to piece the events together, I believe this to be the best account available of these crimes. I bet if I fully researched a book to the best of my ability and knew that it was as accurate as humanly possible there would still be people claiming it to be horrible or full of lies or complete garbage. You can't please everyone all of the time. This book is a classic and wouldn't be in its 37th printing and being made into a movie this year if wasn't thought of highly by many. So the best advice is that you read it and see for yourself, form your own opinions instead of letting someone else make them for you.

Graysmith recounts the timeline of the unsolved serial murders of the "Zodiac" killer. I knew that Zodiac is still free, but it never really hit me that he's among us until after I read this book. This person (or possibly more than one person) is working with somebody, sleeping with somebody, cared for by somebody. Could be you. Could be me. Nobody is working on the case anymore. He's intelligent. He's possibly still killing. He's good at what he does (however horrible and gruesome it is). He's free.

Awesome, awesome, awesome. I have heard that some of the "facts" are not accurate, but this book is still great. It doesn't just scratch upon the surface, but rather cuts then burrows down deep into the guts of the case and comes tearing out through a large gaping exit wound. It presents all the facts without ever getting boring or bogged down. The author also presents many theories that are well thought out, and never seem half-baked. Ultimately though it is a bit anti-climactic, but this is the case of the Zodiac Killer...

This book is very disappointing. I was even appalled at the nerve of the author to re-release this book and identify the man he THINKS is the Zodiac killer after the man's death. The author actually demonstrates how an investigation can get botched with tunnel vision. A prime suspect is the sole focus and evidence is distorted any way it can be to "prove" this suspect is the Zodiac killer. There were other possible leads and suspects that were discounted by the author.

By the time you reach the middle of the book, you'll see it is already obvious who the author THINKS is the Zodiac killer. The rest of the book discounts other leads and suspects and focuses on "evidence" that "proves" the author has identified the Zodiac Killer. Very disheartening.

It should be noted the author is not an investigator and the identity of the Zodiac killer remains a mystery to this day. The author has NOT proven his "identification" of the Zodiac killer. This book is a shame.

Great book. If you like anything to do with serial killers then this is the book. Explores ever murder by zodiac and some other which are only suspected to be done by him. The only thing it missed was the radian factor in the murders, but still great. Read this one and remember he is still out there.

Robert Graysmith has gotten a lot of bad publicity lately but this book is a must-have for anyone interested in the unsolved Zodiac murders.
Graysmith lists everything he was allowed to write when this book came out. Thankfully, the sequel (Zodiac Unmasked) has the rest.

First I would like to respond to the first review... I have read the book and I am very excited about the movie based on Mr. Graysmith's book, Zodiac Unmasked!! As odd as the case is, I do know that the projector theory you mentioned is not at all true... Graysmith CLEARLY states in Zodiac Unmasked that the oddest part about the case being unsolved/cold is that he believed the killer was in front of their eyes and Arthur Leigh Allen. In the book he unmistakingly states that Leigh (which if you read the book, you would not need to use pages to identify numbers the memory of information would stand alone) is what he prefered to be called, was AMBIDEXTROUS! He used his LEFT had in every day writing and his RIGHT hand to write the letters. That is if he was indeed 100% the Zodiac killer. Just to clarify things for you, this was Leigh's genius... he was indeed a mastermind at making certain he would not get caught. The reason why they went to get a handwritng sample was NOT to get a sample of his every day handwriting, it was to get a sample of his RIGHT HAND! They needed Sherwood to check his RIGHT HAND because that would have been the hand they would need to test the letters....

i hope i was able to clear some things up for you... i loved this book and i too, LOVED this case. Back then, there wasn't much geographic profiling as there is now and not to mention, DNA testing... there was only saliva testing. If you want to pass judgement on a case you should have probably bought a fictional novel however going into this you should have known with the title being ZODIAC UNMASKED... it is a cold case and has yet to be solved... hopefully, one day, the victims' families will be able to put closer on thier losses. With that being said, my condolences go out to the families that lost their loved ones to this killer.

sincerely,

chloe25

While highly entertaining, this doesn't actually focus much on the truth. In fact, this book would be more appropriately billed as 'fiction' as much of it simply is that. It's difficult to explain: it's a good story but nothing if you want the real story.

I am in Doctorate school for Forensic Psychology and decided I would like to read up on the Zodiac killer over the winter break for something fun to do with my free time. Robert Graysmith got this ALL wrong. The Zodiac is not (from the crimes I read about in the book) a sexual sadist, as was depicted through the whole book. I also felt the extreme need to note that the majority of the book consist of assumptions, with one consultation from an "expert" on the field related to serial killers. This "expert" who happened to work at Stanford Law (and for his poor sake I will leave his name out of this) suggested to Robert (the author) that there are two types of serial killers: A sexual sadist and a paranoid schizophrenic. I am not going to ramble on about how ridiculously wrong that statement is; for those of you reading my comment.....you can do the research on your own if interested in learning more (I suggest peer reviewed articles and profiles of criminals created by someone in our field, not a cartoonist with a curiosity). I don't usually comment on here about the books that I have read, but because this was of personal and professional interest to me, I felt the need to let the public know that this is NOT an accurate account of the Zodiac. The evidence and information about the crimes committed and investigated are the only worthy parts in this book, giving the reader a look at the letters Zodiac wrote and a somewhat thorough job in describing the crime scenes.

I'm giving advice, for those of you who are interested in learning about the truth and not something fabricated to make a crime look good on paper. Be careful what you choose to learn and gain your information from. Pay attention to who wrote it, and NEVER assume that just because it is published that it is accurate.

When this novel first appeared in 1986, everyone assumed the author, Robert Graysmith, had honestly and accurately documented the unsolved case of the Zodiac murders. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I first noticed errors in his work as early as 1993, but assumed they were perhaps typos or he was a little mixed up with directions. I had known since 1991 that "Robert Hall Starr" was none other than Arthur Leigh Allen, the most well-known Zodiac suspect, and I knew he lived at 32 Fresno Street in Vallejo. After reading this novel thinly disguised as a non-fiction true crime book, I assumed, as did everyone else, that Allen lived close to Zodiac victim Darlene Ferrin (pp. 33, 293) and later moved to Santa Rosa (p. 268); since he was in Vallejo in the 1990's, I assumed he moved back. After unsuccessfully trying to locate his place of employment in Santa Rosa (which Graysmith described in detail, pp. 271-272, 277, 281, 305) in late 1994, I started looking at things in Vallejo. It was then that I realized how close 32 Fresno was to 1300 Virginia (where Darlene Ferrin lived, p. 16), and I wondered what the odds were against Allen living close to her in 1969, moving to Santa Rosa and then returning to the same general area in the 1980's or 90's. A little further checking into old directories for Vallejo revealed that Allen had never moved away!

It was then that everything began to unravel for Graysmith. I noticed as I looked back over old newspaper accounts that I had read much of the dialogue before; Graysmith lifted it straight from the newspaper stories without even giving anyone credit! But it didn't end there. His theories never made any sense, such as the infamous "projector theory" (pp. 218-219). He claimed that, after closely studying the April 1978 letter (which was ultimately found to be a forgery), the Zodiac Killer used a projector to trace over the writing of other people, so that, if his own writing was checked by law enforcement, there would be no match. Nice theory, however, how did the Zodiac use the projector to write on the car door of victim Bryan Hartnell (pp. 72, 76-77)? Not only that, if he was so certain in 1978 that the Zodiac was using a projector to disguise his writing, why was he just two years later trying to get samples of Arthur Leigh Allen's handwriting for expert Sherwood Morrill to examine (pp. 281-283), and why did he spend at least four years trying to do so (p. 305)? Graysmith claimed that Allen's writing "was the closest to the Zodiac printing that I had ever seen" (p. 281). If Allen was the Zodiac as Graysmith is trying to make everyone believe, what then was the point of Allen using a projector to disguise his writing when it looked just like the Zodiac's writing anyway?

It's absurdities like this that make this novel a waste of time if you're interested in the truth and the facts of the case, but it is totally entertaining on another level entirely as we watch Graysmith painting himself into corner after corner and sticking his foot in his mouth time and again.

One thing that bears special mention is how and, more importantly, when, Graysmith claims he first heard about Allen. In his 1986 version of the story (p. 260), he says it was on March 2nd, 1980, and he was asking Inspector Dave Toschi if any Zodiac suspects ever wrote to him. Toschi claimed Allen was the only one, and Graysmith details the conversation. In his 2002 followup novel, "Zodiac Unmasked" (pp. 181-182), Graysmith claims this conversation happened sometime after August 31st, 1977 (the day Allen was released from Atascadero) and before January 3rd, 1978; it is apparently early September 1977, and not only are the details of the conversation different than in his original version 16 years prior (though they still revolve around Graysmith inquiring as to whether any suspects ever wrote to Toschi), he now claims the time it happened was two and a half years earlier!

To top things off, we find in the 2007 reissue of "Zodiac" yet a third version of that conversation (p. 346)! In this case, the director of the new movie "Zodiac," David Fincher, is detailing how Graysmith became involved, and it had nothing to do with asking about suspects! The time is just prior to Allen's release from Atascadero, so it is July or August 1977, and Graysmith wants to help with the case so Toschi essentially enlists his aid and tells him to check out Allen in Vallejo!

So, Graysmith details three different versions of the conversation and gives three different dates as to when it allegedly happened, and he was one of the only two people who were there! What gives?

The answer is obvious, and if he can't be truthful about an incident that he himself participated in, then we know precisely what to expect from the rest of this novel. If you want to know the truth, then don't waste your time with this book. If you want to read a scary and entertaining piece of fiction, then this novel is just what you're looking for! Just don't confuse it with reality.

Oh, and I had to give it a one star rating because there are no zero star ratings.

When this novel first appeared in 1986, everyone assumed the author, Robert Graysmith, had honestly and accurately documented the unsolved case of the Zodiac murders. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I first noticed errors in his work as early as 1993, but assumed they were perhaps typos or he was a little mixed up with directions. I had known since 1991 that "Robert Hall Starr" was none other than Arthur Leigh Allen, the most well-known Zodiac suspect, and I knew he lived at 32 Fresno Street in Vallejo. After reading this novel thinly disguised as a non-fiction true crime book, I assumed, as did everyone else, that Allen lived close to Zodiac victim Darlene Ferrin (pp. 33, 293) and later moved to Santa Rosa (p. 268); since he was in Vallejo in the 1990's, I assumed he moved back. After unsuccessfully trying to locate his place of employment in Santa Rosa (which Graysmith described in detail, pp. 271-272, 277, 281, 305) in late 1994, I started looking at things in Vallejo. It was then that I realized how close 32 Fresno was to 1300 Virginia (where Darlene Ferrin lived, p. 16), and I wondered what the odds were against Allen living close to her in 1969, moving to Santa Rosa and then returning to the same general area in the 1980's or 90's. A little further checking into old directories for Vallejo revealed that Allen had never moved away!

It was then that everything began to unravel for Graysmith. I noticed as I looked back over old newspaper accounts that I had read much of the dialogue before; Graysmith lifted it straight from the newspaper stories without even giving anyone credit! But it didn't end there. His theories never made any sense, such as the infamous "projector theory" (pp. 218-219). He claimed that, after closely studying the April 1978 letter (which was ultimately found to be a forgery), the Zodiac Killer used a projector to trace over the writing of other people, so that, if his own writing was checked by law enforcement, there would be no match. Nice theory, however, how did the Zodiac use the projector to write on the car door of victim Bryan Hartnell (pp. 72, 76-77)? Not only that, if he was so certain in 1978 that the Zodiac was using a projector to disguise his writing, why was he just two years later trying to get samples of Arthur Leigh Allen's handwriting for expert Sherwood Morrill to examine (pp. 281-283), and why did he spend at least four years trying to do so (p. 305)? Graysmith claimed that Allen's writing "was the closest to the Zodiac printing that I had ever seen" (p. 281). If Allen was the Zodiac as Graysmith is trying to make everyone believe, what then was the point of Allen using a projector to disguise his writing when it looked just like the Zodiac's writing anyway?

It's absurdities like this that make this novel a waste of time if you're interested in the truth and the facts of the case, but it is totally entertaining on another level entirely as we watch Graysmith painting himself into corner after corner and sticking his foot in his mouth time and again.

One thing that bears special mention is how and, more importantly, when, Graysmith claims he first heard about Allen. In his 1986 version of the story (p. 260), he says it was on March 2nd, 1980, and he was asking Inspector Dave Toschi if any Zodiac suspects ever wrote to him. Toschi claimed Allen was the only one, and Graysmith details the conversation. In his 2002 followup novel, "Zodiac Unmasked" (pp. 181-182), Graysmith claims this conversation happened sometime after August 31st, 1977 (the day Allen was released from Atascadero) and before January 3rd, 1978; it is apparently early September 1977, and not only are the details of the conversation different than in his original version 16 years prior (though they still revolve around Graysmith inquiring as to whether any suspects ever wrote to Toschi), he now claims the time it happened was two and a half years earlier!

To top things off, we find in the 2007 reissue of "Zodiac" yet a third version of that conversation (p. 346)! In this case, the director of the new movie "Zodiac," David Fincher, is detailing how Graysmith became involved, and it had nothing to do with asking about suspects! The time is just prior to Allen's release from Atascadero, so it is July or August 1977, and Graysmith wants to help with the case so Toschi essentially enlists his aid and tells him to check out Allen in Vallejo!

So, Graysmith details three different versions of the conversation and gives three different dates as to when it allegedly happened, and he was one of the only two people who were there! What gives?

The answer is obvious, and if he can't be truthful about an incident that he himself participated in, then we know precisely what to expect from the rest of this novel. If you want to know the truth, then don't waste your time with this book. If you want to read a scary and entertaining piece of fiction, then this novel is just what you're looking for! Just don't confuse it with reality.

Oh, and I had to give it a one star rating because there are no zero star ratings.